Skip to main content

About your Search

20121108
20121116
STATION
CSPAN 4
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
the use of the web. john kerry went forward on that aspect. but boy, the bush campaign had it going. in 2008, the mccain campaign was up and down. the organization after its, what they had in 2004 was lost in 2008. it had to be rebuilt by the romney campaign, but only after their able to get the republican nomination in april. it was late in part because of super pacs, which kept the process going much longer than it ever normally goes. as long as you and i have been watching this and before that, when a candidate started losing primaries, other donors close their checkbooks. you run out of money and you drop out of the race. what is happening is, they kept gingrinch going for a while. the process went longer and longer. romney had to go so much further and longer -- here is a guy who is probably by nature -- when we met for him when he ran for the senate in 1994, that is where he was. he has to run so much longer and further to the right than he ever dreamed and in part because of the super pac effort. then you had -- i guess the final thing i would say is having the economy kind o
in 2012 when you can keep running against john kerry in 2004. it's all over fox this morning. they know how it ends. it's like old biff getting into the "back to the future" car. it's something else, man. >> stephanie: yes, they're literally running the old swift vote as against john kerry because he's rumored to be secretary of defense. >> eric: yes mccain wants watergate hearings and the majority looking for robo calls and impeachment. >> stephanie: they are holding a press conference because of their old pull john mccain and said hearings are not required because he went to the briefing to find out what the truth is rather than grandstanding like the increasingly bitter elf john mccain. >> they had sources sources in the testimony that petraeus game gave in september 14th. he said don't want the center line or do you want the truth. to some it looks like he was going along this was in interest of the national security or was he being blackmailed to toe the line. >> stephanie: some said this to petraeus at some point. >> yes, and then blackmail. >> stephanie: yes, clearly. wow. do we
unqualifiable or unqualified for the position so they can appoint john kerry which opens up the senate seat to mass, let's deal with that later. the question for the governor. you affirm the intelligence assessments read on the sunday shows were wrong. and i think it's fair and obvious that the intelligence leading up to the attack was wrong and missed the attack. so can you talk about what type of massive or maybe not so massive intelligence failure occurred on the president's watch and what can be done to actually fix that? >> look, what the president has said and what is going on is an investigation. ambassador tom pickering, probably the most senior member conducting that investigation, you to read all of the e-mails, all of the cables, all of the meetings, and you make an assessment of who bears some responsibility in this issue. is it diplomatic security? is intelligence? i think there's another issue here which really concerns me and that at one point the disclosure of some of our libyan assets was made publicly by one of the house committees. i think we have to be very careful about
an announcement or if there is an announcement that john kerry going to be named secretary of state, in which case there will be a special election down the road for that senate seat, and you will see scott brown become the great conciliator as he prepares for the election. for others, they will continue to take their clothes from what the leaders say or what the members do. there the question is whether mcconnell basically becomes at least five things a more passive actor and lets lamar alexander and bob corker and tom coburn take the lead and doing something that he will oppose in the end, cause he is mindful of 2014, as tom said. or whether you do not get that kind of impact and mcconnell works overtime to yank its members back into a tougher and negotiating position. if that is the case, we go right over the cliff. >> i think mitch mcconnell will not be able to sustain unified republican support behind filibusters over the long -- clusters. >> over the long, it may work to the lame-duck session, but the on but it, it is no longer possible. but norm's scenario of the quiet person in the back sp
the possibility that senator john kerry could be nominated to replace, to succeed leon panetta as secretary of defense. >> i think that's true. they certainly weren't falling over themselves saying we would vote to approve john kerry if nominated, but they didn't have any kind of aversion to him either. he's one of the club here in terms of the senate club. but back to this whole question of susan rice, i think as i mentioned before, i was the one who provoked senator graham and senator mccain into talking about susan rice because the question that i asked was something i've been hearing from democrats, which is this, why are you so opposed to susan rice after she made some potentially incorrect or what now seemed to be incorrect statements publicly when they supported condoleezza rice back in the bush years for secretary of state after she clearly made incorrect public statements about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and that's what provide voloked whole discussion. it comes to a question, it seems to me, certainly they're angry and these republican senators are calling for a select c
wanted to tell you earlier but didn't have a chance. john kerry is my rent. i work so hard for him when he was running for president. i did everything i could to help him and he came very, very close. there's been no better legislature then i served with. he's been out front on issues dealing with climate change, and for structure, development and many other things. i don't know any conversations at the president or anyone in the white house has had within any conversation i've had with john kerry. he does not bring up has been secretary of anything. i'll do everything i can to help him if he is chosen. we feel very comfortable if in fact something does happen, we feel comfortable in massachusetts. i think i've heard he you how i feel about scott brown. [inaudible] what do you think his priority should be coming out? >> the president's priorities as he is outlined this campaign, to protect the mail class and small business. we are one vote away from that accomplishment -- been accomplished. all we have to decide the house of representatives web are built. they should do this to help the
with an incumbent. he went after john kerry's war record. >> what did president bush do? he claimed a mandate he didn't have on iraq and it sank his presidency. sorry to interrupt. >> is there a number to sum up the election? 47%. a moment to sum up the obama campaign, it was the first debate. these were self-inflicted wounds that these candidates may to themselves. much influence do you think they had? >> i think the 47% was a pretty big deal. democrats have been laying the groundwork with these attack ads portraying romney as the guy who cared about the middle class and was interested in protecting rich people like himself. romney sort of betrayed himself. the democrats seized on that. it happened at a time when romney's candidacy was floundering. the first debate, he was able to put that 47% behind him, but the damage was done. >> he put that behind him in his first debate. he spent all that money and allow time characterizing romney as an uncaring monster. all the sudden he looked reasonable. he looked like somebody who could be president. the president did not bring his a game. part of it w
he came out so strongly so that when he doesn't appoint her and goes with someone like john kerry or even tom donelan, his defense is already on record. and he doesn't have to relitigate that again in the press. >> i'll tell you what i saw yesterday, issue aside, i saw a president with a heightened level of testosterone, gravitas, and maybe a precursor of what he's going to look like the next four years. i saw a definite different kick to his step. obviously, he's been going toe to toe, but there was an authority, there was a -- i'm going to keep using the word "testosterone." a lot of that was missing in the first term, and i found that very interesting, his first kind of public volley eight days later as a harbinger of things to come. >> he spoke quickly in that press conference. did you notice? it was the fastest i've ever heard him speak. you know, we got accustomed over the past four years to a very slow, methodic kind of elongated speech pattern. and he came out, he was rapid, he was quick. >> you got a problem? come to me. i found that very interesting. >> richard, what are
wanted to tell you earlier but did not have the chance. john kerry is my friend. i worked so hard for him when he was running for president. i did everything i could to help them. he came very close. there has been no better legislator that i served with. he has been way out front on issues dealing with climate change, infrastructure, bank development, many other things. i do not know any conversation with the president or anyone in the white house has had with him. any conversation i have had with john kerry, he does not bring up the secretary of anything. i'll do everything i can to help him if he is chosen. we feel very comfortable if in fact something does happen, we feel comfortable that massachusetts will -- i have already told you how i feel about scott brown. >> what do you think are his priorities -- his party should be? parties -- toent partie protect the middle-class and small business. we are one vote away from that being accomplished. all we have to do is have the house of representatives bring up our bill. we have brought up their bill -- it was roundly defeated. they should
capitol in this term and while john kerry is waiting in the wings. saying i can do it and reporting for duty. it promiseless to give you a boost. watch a warning this morning. five-hour energy could kill you. that's the question. >> brian: it is a question. we have not answered that question. >> gretchen: is she's new's reporter or gushing fan. >> thank you, mr. president and congratulations by the way. one quick follow up. >> it is when i was running foritate senate. >> christie and i have gone away. i never seen you lose. can sneet ♪ c ♪ ♪ it's swanson flavor boost. concentrated broth to add delicious flavor to your skillet dish in just one stir. mmm! [ female announcer ] cook, meet compliments. get recipes at flavorboost.com. >> thank you, mr. president and congratulations by the way. one quick follow up. >> she was there when i ran for state senate. >> i was i never seen you lose . i wasn't looking that one time. >> steve: maybe you could call her the president's biggest fan. a chicago newspaper reporter in the east room congratulating the commander-in-chief on the win in
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)